Yesterday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), co-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (and probable source of many leaks of secret information) released a hand-scrawled letter he had written to VP Cheney two years ago after being briefed on the NSA domestic intel effort. Rockefeller, trying to score political points, raised the letter as proof of his doubts about the NSA program, and that his hands were tied, unable to do anything about it. This morning, Intel Committee Chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) released this statement which blows Rockefeller out of the water:

"I am puzzled by the release yesterday of a July 2003 letter from Senator Rockefeller to the Vice President regarding the recently exposed intelligence collection program, which was authorized by the President shortly after September 11, 2001.

In his letter and accompanying press statement, Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it.

A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools.

If Senator Rockefeller truly had the concerns he claimed to have had in his two and a half year old letter, he could have pursued a number of options to have those concerns addressed:

1. First, he could have discussed his concerns with me or other Members of Congress who had been briefed on the program. He never asked me or the Committee to take any action consistent with the concerns raised in his letter.

2. Second, he could have raised objections with the Vice President during one of the many briefings we received. I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together. In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the Vice President his vocal support for the program. His most recent expression of support was only two weeks ago.

3. Finally, he could have pursued any number of legislative remedies. He chose to pursue none.

Senator Rockefeller could have taken any of these approaches to adress his lingering concerns. He did not. He chose instead to write a letter to the Vice President and for two and a half years, keep a copy of the letter in the Intelligence Committee vault and say nothing to anyone.

For the nearly three years Senator Rockefeller has served as Vice Chairman, I have heard no objection from him about this valuable program. Now, when it appears to be politically advantageous, Senator Rockefeller has chosen to release his two and a half year old letter. Forgive me if I find this to be inconsistent and a bit disingenuous.

I'm more convinced today than ever that he is the mole who blabbed to the NYslimes. He should be removed from the committee post-haste. If I remember correctly added to the secret communication from his staff to undermine the President before the '04 election?

The Washington Post article also said, "...In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object."

The last paragraph of that article is the kicker. Bush has been vindicated from these charges that the Democrats say all this stuff has been done under total secrecy. Which is untrue. Both Republicans and Democrats have been briefed on a regular and routine basis since day one of his administration.

No official date stamp....newspaper photograph....to verify when it was written AND THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY SENT.

One would assume.....under any circumstances...that he would want to get his reservations "on the record".

I noticed something in the letter where it begins "I am retaining this copy" (or something like that) .....etc.. The "I" is different from all others (I think). That would make me think he stopped...and began again and that this was done under duress. I think someone in his own party has something on him.....like maybe a woman in a stinkn' pantsuit.

Not hard enough. When are they going to stand up and start calling these RAT politicians what they really are --TRAITORS -- and call for THEIR resignations, impeachment, censure, etc. like the RATs are doing to President Bush??!!

125
posted on 12/20/2005 11:58:02 AM PST
by Polyxene
(For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)

In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object.

They were adequately briefed. Rockfellar was too damn dumb to understand what he was being told and did absolutely nothing to fix that position. As for not seriously objecting. Yeah whatever, if you call someone who complains that they don't have a clue about what they were just briefed on, objecting.

WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today released the following statement regarding the Committees Review of Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq:

I have just been made aware of a letter sent to the Republican Leader and Assistant Leader signed by the Democrat Leader and Assistant Leader.

The letter is basically a partisan allegation about Phase II of the Intelligence Committees Review of Pre War Intelligence on Iraq. It alleges incorrectly that critical questions remain about the committees progress on its investigation, its timeline for completing that investigation, and what remaining steps need to be taken to ensure a prompt, thorough, and complete review.

As an ex officio member of the Committee, Senator Reid is welcome to participate in any Committee activity including Phase II. He has yet to do so.

If the Democrat Leader has critical questions he should pick up the phone and call me, or better yet, attend the business meeting scheduled for this Thursday when we will discuss all facets of our progress on Phase II. I think he would be pleasantly surprised.

The Democrats cannot be trusted with the national security of the United States.

It is the Democrats who have sought to undermine our effort in Iraq by continually questioning the wisdom of of initiating that enterprise and falsely claiming that the President lied.

Democrats sought to weaken the President by claiming that the Afghan campaign was a quagmire until even they could no longer do so with a straight face.

Democrats in the Clinton administration believed our conflict with violent Islamic fundamentalism was a law enforcement matter and so erected the Gorelick Wall between the Justice Department (including the FBI) and other national security agencies and refused Sudan's offer to turn over bin Laden.

Democrats in the media have, for partisan purposes, sought to weaken our will to continue our effort in Iraq by the most one-sided coverage of any event that I can recall.

Democrats hurt our efforts throughout the Islamic world by continually harping on the isolated and insignificant abuses at Abu Ghraib long after the Army had taken steps to remedy them. And they did so for partisan purposes.

Howard Dean, presumably speaking for most Democrats, has emboldened our enemies by falsely claiming that we have lost in Iraq.

Many other Democrats, including the leader of the Democrats in the House, have lent comfort to our enemies by demanding a timetable for surrender . . . er, I mean withdrawal from Iraq.

Democrats turned the 9-11 Commission hearings into a partisan witch hunt against the Bush Administration.

Democrats advocated that the protections of the Geneva Convention be extended to terrorists in American custody, even though the Convention by its terms specifically excludes nonuniformed, stateless combatants.

Democrats have advocated that terrorists in American custody be treated as criminal defendants, rather than as prisoners of war.

Democrats and some Republicans would grant prisoners of the war on terror access to American courts to challenge the circumstances of their captivity and interrogation.

Yes, he's opposing ANWR and whining to the press that he dislikes the tactics of Stevens to impose ANWR on him. Even though Stevens merely copied mcCain's moves to get his torture bill added to the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Now Mccain is being forced to either vote down the bill funding the troops that contains his precious rights for terrorists, or vote for a bill supporting Artic Drilling that Soros will not be happy with him about. I'm enjoying McCain's predicament. I wouldn't mind a filibuster that defeated McCain's torture bill, but if it passes, we'll at least get ANWR. Either way Mccain is screwed and I love that after the way he blackmailed the President.

The question now is whether McCain wants his terrorist protections badly enough to bring the RINO's along with him to prevent a filibuster of the bill. It's quite a nice bit of side entertainment.

139
posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:01 PM PST
by Soul Seeker
(Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)

Democrats in the Clinton administration believed our conflict with violent Islamic fundamentalism was a law enforcement matter and so erected the Gorelick Wall between the Justice Department (including the FBI) and other national security agencies...

I would say that the Democrats erected the wall to keep investigators from finding out the extent of Chinese campaign funding of the Clintons, and violent Islamic fundamentalism just got caught up in the wall as a side effect.

Although I am not a constituant I wanted to thank you for your support of the President and your comments in reference to the disingenuous comments by Sen. Rockefellor. Too often, it seems the President has had to stand alone against Democrats and some liberal Republicans. Conservatives know that it is not easy to stand up to these folks as well as the MSM. We know it takes courage and calls for people like yourself, who stand on principle, to rebute the assertions, half truths and lies. We will not forget your efforts. Once again, Thank You,

145
posted on 12/20/2005 12:17:13 PM PST
by stocksthatgoup
("It's inexcusable to tell us to 'connect the dots' and not give us the tools to do so." G W Bush)

Jay Rockefeller is a carpetbagging leach who decided to ride the West Virginia train to government priviledge. That is, he got on the train after his family raped the state of as much of its natural resources and exploited its citizens for all that they could.

Rockefeller is yet another politician who survives because dueling was made illegal.

148
posted on 12/20/2005 12:21:01 PM PST
by Ghengis
(Alexander was a wuss!)

Now Mccain is being forced to either vote down the bill funding the troops that contains his precious rights for terrorists, or vote for a bill supporting Artic Drilling that Soros will not be happy with him about. I'm enjoying McCain's predicament. I wouldn't mind a filibuster that defeated McCain's torture bill, but if it passes, we'll at least get ANWR. Either way Mccain is screwed and I love that after the way he blackmailed the President.

That's the way I see it too. McCain was the only one really raising a ruckus, and he's been blackballed by Stevens in an effort to make McCain choose his vote wisely. Either way, as you said, McCain is screwed. But, we're also forgetting that the Democrats don't want us drilling in ANWR either, and they'll be forced to vote the entire bill down.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.